First off, a quick update, as I've been out to sea for 3 months. The Minnesota Legislature DID pass a transportation funding bill, which was promptly vetoed by the Governor. However, when the veto override vote came up, six House Republicans chose to break ranks and vote for the bill, and so both MnDOT and regional transit finally have their first real surge in funding in years. Afterwards, and somewhat in keeping with requirements in the bill, MnDOT announced accelerated timetables for several bridge replacements, including the US 52 Lafayette Bridge, the US 61 Hastings Bridge, and the MN 23 DeSoto Bridge in St. Cloud...which has been closed for the past month after an inspection brought up concerns about the gusset plates.
----------
Moving on to more recent events, about a week ago was the first of some articles around the country (mainly the same article/story appearing in different locations on different days) on removing freeways from urban areas, especially blighted elevated freeways, and highlighting Oklahoma City's removal of I-40 through downtown.
What some of these articles barely mention, however, is that I-40 is not being eliminated. It's being relocated to a covered-over trench along an old railroad line a few blocks to the south. While this will allow the city to build a park along the existing I-40 right-of-way, to say that the freeway is being torn down to make room for a park, without discussing the relocation, is misleading.
Supporters are quick to point out real-life examples of freeway removal as a talking point for further projects. It should be pointed out that most of these removals were spur routes, not major through routes. They were also done either due to structural damage (i.e. the Embarcadero in San Francisco after the '89 earthquake) or because the route was underutilized (i.e. the Park East in Milwaukee).
That said, the story has opened up discussion nationwide about removing or relocating freeways from undesirable locations, either for aesthetic reasons (i.e. along a waterfront), or to open up areas of the central city for redevelopment. Minneapolis is no exception, and there's been some discussion on the StarTribune Roadguy blog about doing the same thing in Minneapolis. Two of the more popular suggestions involve downgrading the 3rd St spur east of the Metrodome that feeds into the U of M campus, and downgrading the 3rd/4th St spur from 2nd Ave N to I-94.
Removing the spur east of the Metrodome to the "U" has several issues related to it, between it being the primary route into and through campus, the proposed Central LRT line, and elevation/grade differences between Cedar Ave and the spur. I'll save this for a future discussion.
Below are some points on the other freeway spur...along 3rd/4th St between I-94 and 2nd Ave N:
- Average traffic volumes on the spur are about 20K daily. Combined with the existing 3rd St/4th St, it’s a total of about 23K. This is on par with many of the one-way pairs around downtown.
- With that in mind, it’s within the realm of possibility to take down the freeway spur and create a 3rd/4th St “boulevard” in between I-94 and 2nd Ave N.
- To maintain traffic flow, though, two main recommendations, if not outright requirements, would be A) traffic signal progression, and B) three lanes on each street. I don’t remember street widths offhand, but I think it’s possible to maintain 3 traffic lanes and still have enough street width for parking and a bike lane, especially inbound along 4th St (which has the wider width available due to the overpass).
- One of two areas of concern is bridging over the BNSF rail tracks. I don’t remember the elevation difference between the BNSF trench and old 3rd St/4th St, but if there’s enough of an elevation difference, you should be able to bridge over the rail tracks without having to bridge over 5th Ave N as well.
- The other area of concern is connecting to the I-94 ramps, especially outbound on 3rd St. The inbound connection to 4th St shouldn’t be much of a problem, but the outbound connection currently has a large building in the way…this building is what causes the break in 3rd St between 10th Ave N and 12th Ave N. It’s not insurmountable, but it may require some tight curviture and will definately impact the parking lots at the building.
So, in a nutshell, I think one's doable, but the other has too many issues that need to be sorted out first.
February 18, 2008
Transportation at the Minnesota Legislature
As expected, the transportation situation in Minnesota is at the forefront of the state Legislature.
The DFL has already introduced a major transportation spending bill similar to last year's...several billion dollars worth. Unfortunately for them, many Republicans are aghast at the large number of 'tax increases' contained in the bill, and the Governor has already put out that he will oppose any tax increases that do not include a corresponding 'tax decrease' elsewhere.
With the state facing a budget deficit, I doubt that'll happen. Unless some major compromise occurs, it'll probably come down to a situation similar to last year: Governor vetoes a transportation bill, the Senate overrides, but the House sustains the veto.
I'm on the mailing list for one state Senator (who shall remain nameless here). The following is part of a legislative update this Senator E-mailed out today:
------------
The $8.4 billion transportation plan introduced last week is very
similar to the bill vetoed by Gov. Pawlenty last spring. It includes a
new 5-cent gas tax with inflationary increases, as much as a 2-1/2 cent
fuel surcharge, a new car registration tax and a half-cent metro sales
tax for transit which is not subject to voter approval.
The bill would undoubtedly provide a large infusion of needed funding
for congested roads and ailing bridges across the state, as well as
funding new state patrol officers and giving transit users more options.
Unfortunately, the bill relies too heavily on new taxes and fees that
would cost all of us directly and indirectly by adding to the cost of
goods brought to market. An additional provision borrows $2.2 billion
for bonding over 10 years. Although the governor has promised a veto of
any bill that does not have a corresponding tax cut, a veto override
attempt could be close.
The House and Senate bills both have a few more committee hearings
before being brought to the respective floors for full debate. At those
stops, it is possible that significant changes will be made, so I will
try to keep you updated on this important bill's status.
----------------------------
Following is my reply:
We're not going to improve the transportation situation by bonding alone, contrary to what the Governor may think. And given the budget deficit that you've already cited, we can't exactly pull money out of the general fund either.
Some sort of revenue increase will be needed. If it takes the DFL and enough Republicans to compromise on a transportation bill that would be veto-proof, then so be it. I'd rather have something than nothing. And if the Legislature ends this session with nothing, you and the Governor will have a lot of angry voters to contend with.
A lot of people are complaining that the tax increases for transportation proposed would "hurt the working poor". Do any of them (yourself included) realize that the working poor are hurt just as much, if not more, by traffic congestion in the metro, poor roadways, and poor transit service? Sure, nobody likes paying more to drive or travel, but if the result is a better transportation system, one that saves TIME as well as the hidden monetary costs of congestion, then it will be worth it.
But the gas tax is still part and parcel of it. Already has Constitutional protection, and is more a "user fee" than most people think.
Nevermind that history shows infrastructure improvements to be economic builders as
well...an important thing to remember in this near-recession economic time.
Lastly, on the subject of tax reform and transportation, it's been long established by the scientific community that heavier vehicles both A) damage roads more than lighter vehicles, and B) require much heavier road construction for the road to support them. Given those in mind, perhaps the state should change vehicle registration fees to be based on vehicle weight instead of based on market value/age depreciation.
----------------------
Will be interesting to see what happens. Hopefully Minnesotans won't be disappointed in the end.
The DFL has already introduced a major transportation spending bill similar to last year's...several billion dollars worth. Unfortunately for them, many Republicans are aghast at the large number of 'tax increases' contained in the bill, and the Governor has already put out that he will oppose any tax increases that do not include a corresponding 'tax decrease' elsewhere.
With the state facing a budget deficit, I doubt that'll happen. Unless some major compromise occurs, it'll probably come down to a situation similar to last year: Governor vetoes a transportation bill, the Senate overrides, but the House sustains the veto.
I'm on the mailing list for one state Senator (who shall remain nameless here). The following is part of a legislative update this Senator E-mailed out today:
------------
The $8.4 billion transportation plan introduced last week is very
similar to the bill vetoed by Gov. Pawlenty last spring. It includes a
new 5-cent gas tax with inflationary increases, as much as a 2-1/2 cent
fuel surcharge, a new car registration tax and a half-cent metro sales
tax for transit which is not subject to voter approval.
The bill would undoubtedly provide a large infusion of needed funding
for congested roads and ailing bridges across the state, as well as
funding new state patrol officers and giving transit users more options.
Unfortunately, the bill relies too heavily on new taxes and fees that
would cost all of us directly and indirectly by adding to the cost of
goods brought to market. An additional provision borrows $2.2 billion
for bonding over 10 years. Although the governor has promised a veto of
any bill that does not have a corresponding tax cut, a veto override
attempt could be close.
The House and Senate bills both have a few more committee hearings
before being brought to the respective floors for full debate. At those
stops, it is possible that significant changes will be made, so I will
try to keep you updated on this important bill's status.
----------------------------
Following is my reply:
We're not going to improve the transportation situation by bonding alone, contrary to what the Governor may think. And given the budget deficit that you've already cited, we can't exactly pull money out of the general fund either.
Some sort of revenue increase will be needed. If it takes the DFL and enough Republicans to compromise on a transportation bill that would be veto-proof, then so be it. I'd rather have something than nothing. And if the Legislature ends this session with nothing, you and the Governor will have a lot of angry voters to contend with.
A lot of people are complaining that the tax increases for transportation proposed would "hurt the working poor". Do any of them (yourself included) realize that the working poor are hurt just as much, if not more, by traffic congestion in the metro, poor roadways, and poor transit service? Sure, nobody likes paying more to drive or travel, but if the result is a better transportation system, one that saves TIME as well as the hidden monetary costs of congestion, then it will be worth it.
But the gas tax is still part and parcel of it. Already has Constitutional protection, and is more a "user fee" than most people think.
Nevermind that history shows infrastructure improvements to be economic builders as
well...an important thing to remember in this near-recession economic time.
Lastly, on the subject of tax reform and transportation, it's been long established by the scientific community that heavier vehicles both A) damage roads more than lighter vehicles, and B) require much heavier road construction for the road to support them. Given those in mind, perhaps the state should change vehicle registration fees to be based on vehicle weight instead of based on market value/age depreciation.
----------------------
Will be interesting to see what happens. Hopefully Minnesotans won't be disappointed in the end.
February 17, 2008
A *REAL* economic stimulus package
So Congress, worried about the economy, passes a $168 billion "economic stimulus package" that the President signs, giving tax breaks to businesses and rebates to taxpayers in an effort to stimulate spending and conversely the now-faltering economy.
Perhaps if Congress had done their homework, they'd have realized that there are far better areas they could have put that money that would do much more to jump-start the economy. With history to back it up.
Tax breaks to some businesses, especially small businesses (which are the lifeblood of the economy to begin with) may be beneficial. And while every taxpayer enjoys getting money back from the government, polls are already showing that a vast majority will be using the rebates to pay down debt or put into savings, instead of spending it as Congress intended. Sorry, Congress/Mr. President, but a much better location to target that $168 billion would have been infrastructure.
Take a look around you. Our public infrastructure is crumbling. Electric grids are overloaded. Water and sewage facilities are old and in need of replacement, as is thousands upon thousands of bridges and miles of pavement. People are sitting in traffic congestion due to lack of capacity and lack of other options.
Even using just 1/3 of that $168 billion figure for infrastructure would have given astounding results. History has long shown that investment in public infrastructure pays hefty dividends down the road (pun intended). Not only would it create construction jobs (with several ancillary economic benefits as a result), but investing in the transportation infrastructure would give motorists and travelers time and money benefits....less time on the road (meaning more time with family), less gas wasted (meaning less money spent on gas...money that they can then spend elsewhere), and better ability to move goods and services (meaning money savings for businesses).
It's a win-win situation. And it's completely UNSAT that Congress failed to consider it.
Perhaps if Congress had done their homework, they'd have realized that there are far better areas they could have put that money that would do much more to jump-start the economy. With history to back it up.
Tax breaks to some businesses, especially small businesses (which are the lifeblood of the economy to begin with) may be beneficial. And while every taxpayer enjoys getting money back from the government, polls are already showing that a vast majority will be using the rebates to pay down debt or put into savings, instead of spending it as Congress intended. Sorry, Congress/Mr. President, but a much better location to target that $168 billion would have been infrastructure.
Take a look around you. Our public infrastructure is crumbling. Electric grids are overloaded. Water and sewage facilities are old and in need of replacement, as is thousands upon thousands of bridges and miles of pavement. People are sitting in traffic congestion due to lack of capacity and lack of other options.
Even using just 1/3 of that $168 billion figure for infrastructure would have given astounding results. History has long shown that investment in public infrastructure pays hefty dividends down the road (pun intended). Not only would it create construction jobs (with several ancillary economic benefits as a result), but investing in the transportation infrastructure would give motorists and travelers time and money benefits....less time on the road (meaning more time with family), less gas wasted (meaning less money spent on gas...money that they can then spend elsewhere), and better ability to move goods and services (meaning money savings for businesses).
It's a win-win situation. And it's completely UNSAT that Congress failed to consider it.
November 18, 2007
Saucier intersection back in the news
So while I was gone (out to sea for a month), looks like yet another fatal accident at the US 49/MS 67 intersection in Saucier, MS. With the resultant calls, please, cries, and screams for MDOT to install a traffic signal there.
So I decided to write the following letter to the SunHerald. Will be interesting to see if they publish it:
Give and take
Another fatal accident at Hwy 49 and Hwy 67 in Saucier. Another screaming call for a traffic light at that intersection.
But, as tragic as ANY fatality or injury at that location is, this isn't the time for emotional decisions. A full-fledged solution, coordinated between MDOT, the residents of Saucier, and the drivers who use the road every day, is what it's time for.
The location is a tricky one, to be sure. There's school traffic, local traffic, commuter traffic, and long-distance traffic all rolled into one location, each with different needs. Long-distance traffic (as you have on Hwy 49 as it's THE 4-lane connector to Hattiesburg and Jackson) does not mesh well with local and school traffic. Throw in commuter traffic going to Gulfport and the result is the mess we have.
There are, in effect, four possible solutions to the situation. But each one has its own give and take.
The first is lowering the speed limit on Hwy 49. But without consistent and continuing speed limit enforcement (unlikely unless we increase the number of state troopers), this will do little to change the problem. This also does little to change the situation for those crossing Hwy 49, especially if those crossing drivers are not paying attention, which has been the cause of some of the accidents.
The second solution is adding a traffic signal, which is where you have your biggest give-and-take. On the one side, adding a traffic signal tends to reduce the severity of accidents, and makes it easier for local traffic to cross Hwy 49. On the flip side, studies show that adding a traffic signal on rural highways (as Hwy 49 is) tends to increase the overall number of accidents, plus increases travel delay on the main highway. There is also the driver expectation that rural highway do not have traffic signals, and introducing one will cause confusion for some or lead to potential accidents. A contributing problem in this case is the same southbound curve that already restricts visibility of the intersection from Hwy 49. A traffic signal also does not eliminate the possibility of nasty accidents. Instead of cases where one driver is going too fast or cuts in front of traffic as we have now, a traffic signal introduces the potential for nasty accidents from drivers running red lights, especially along a busy highway like Hwy 49.
The third solution is to close the median crossing at Hwy 67 and install U-turns on either end. This reduces the problem of crossing traffic, as crossing traffic will only need to deal with one side of Hwy 49 at a time and does not penalize Hwy 49 traffic as a traffic signal would. The downside is that it's more inconvenient for crossing traffic or left-turning traffic. Though this requires some right-of-way, and a large enough pull-out for trucks and buses to make a U-turn, it's less expensive than the last solution.
The last solution to the Hwy 49/Hwy 67 problem is the safest solution, but also the most expensive and the one that takes the most time to implement: a diamond interchange. This solution would allow local traffic to freely cross Hwy 49, as well as allow Hwy 49 traffic to travel unimpeded by cross-traffic. Unfortunately, diamond interchanges require some right-of-way, several million dollars, and at least a year or two to implement. And in this case, any interchange decision would be impacted by the ongoing Hwy 601 study and the decision on where to put the new Hwy 601.
So it all boils down to give-and-take. How much do MDOT and the residents of Saucier want to give up to get what they want. And how much will both Hwy 49 and local travelers have to suffer in the process. The answer won't be easy.
So I decided to write the following letter to the SunHerald. Will be interesting to see if they publish it:
Give and take
Another fatal accident at Hwy 49 and Hwy 67 in Saucier. Another screaming call for a traffic light at that intersection.
But, as tragic as ANY fatality or injury at that location is, this isn't the time for emotional decisions. A full-fledged solution, coordinated between MDOT, the residents of Saucier, and the drivers who use the road every day, is what it's time for.
The location is a tricky one, to be sure. There's school traffic, local traffic, commuter traffic, and long-distance traffic all rolled into one location, each with different needs. Long-distance traffic (as you have on Hwy 49 as it's THE 4-lane connector to Hattiesburg and Jackson) does not mesh well with local and school traffic. Throw in commuter traffic going to Gulfport and the result is the mess we have.
There are, in effect, four possible solutions to the situation. But each one has its own give and take.
The first is lowering the speed limit on Hwy 49. But without consistent and continuing speed limit enforcement (unlikely unless we increase the number of state troopers), this will do little to change the problem. This also does little to change the situation for those crossing Hwy 49, especially if those crossing drivers are not paying attention, which has been the cause of some of the accidents.
The second solution is adding a traffic signal, which is where you have your biggest give-and-take. On the one side, adding a traffic signal tends to reduce the severity of accidents, and makes it easier for local traffic to cross Hwy 49. On the flip side, studies show that adding a traffic signal on rural highways (as Hwy 49 is) tends to increase the overall number of accidents, plus increases travel delay on the main highway. There is also the driver expectation that rural highway do not have traffic signals, and introducing one will cause confusion for some or lead to potential accidents. A contributing problem in this case is the same southbound curve that already restricts visibility of the intersection from Hwy 49. A traffic signal also does not eliminate the possibility of nasty accidents. Instead of cases where one driver is going too fast or cuts in front of traffic as we have now, a traffic signal introduces the potential for nasty accidents from drivers running red lights, especially along a busy highway like Hwy 49.
The third solution is to close the median crossing at Hwy 67 and install U-turns on either end. This reduces the problem of crossing traffic, as crossing traffic will only need to deal with one side of Hwy 49 at a time and does not penalize Hwy 49 traffic as a traffic signal would. The downside is that it's more inconvenient for crossing traffic or left-turning traffic. Though this requires some right-of-way, and a large enough pull-out for trucks and buses to make a U-turn, it's less expensive than the last solution.
The last solution to the Hwy 49/Hwy 67 problem is the safest solution, but also the most expensive and the one that takes the most time to implement: a diamond interchange. This solution would allow local traffic to freely cross Hwy 49, as well as allow Hwy 49 traffic to travel unimpeded by cross-traffic. Unfortunately, diamond interchanges require some right-of-way, several million dollars, and at least a year or two to implement. And in this case, any interchange decision would be impacted by the ongoing Hwy 601 study and the decision on where to put the new Hwy 601.
So it all boils down to give-and-take. How much do MDOT and the residents of Saucier want to give up to get what they want. And how much will both Hwy 49 and local travelers have to suffer in the process. The answer won't be easy.
May 09, 2007
And now, a word from our compromiser...
So the Minnesota House and Senate have come to some sort of compromise on a transportation funding bill.
Looks like a 5 cent gas tax increase (vice the previously planned 10-cent), $1.5 billion in bonding (to be repaid via a 2.5-cent gas tax instead of the MVST transfer), and a rescinding of the second-year-and-beyond caps on vehicle registration fees for NEW vehicles (existing vehicles will apparently still have the caps on tab fees). The Strib article suggests that they're still working out other details.
That's nice. Fine and dandy. Though given that the Governor has vowed to veto *ANYTHING* involving a tax increase this year, it will be even better if this thing has enough votes to override a veto. I sure as hell hope the Republicans in the Legislature have the balls to go with what's best for Minnesota...BETTER TRANSPORTATION FUNDING...and not stick with their head-in-the-sand leader.
I know at least one who will (and Rep. Erhardt, you get kudos, as you did from me two years ago). Alas, I know at least three who won't have the balls (Seifert, Sviggum, and Day...you're on notice).
'Course, maybe someone could convince the Governor that the gas tax is like a "health impact fee"...
Looks like a 5 cent gas tax increase (vice the previously planned 10-cent), $1.5 billion in bonding (to be repaid via a 2.5-cent gas tax instead of the MVST transfer), and a rescinding of the second-year-and-beyond caps on vehicle registration fees for NEW vehicles (existing vehicles will apparently still have the caps on tab fees). The Strib article suggests that they're still working out other details.
That's nice. Fine and dandy. Though given that the Governor has vowed to veto *ANYTHING* involving a tax increase this year, it will be even better if this thing has enough votes to override a veto. I sure as hell hope the Republicans in the Legislature have the balls to go with what's best for Minnesota...BETTER TRANSPORTATION FUNDING...and not stick with their head-in-the-sand leader.
I know at least one who will (and Rep. Erhardt, you get kudos, as you did from me two years ago). Alas, I know at least three who won't have the balls (Seifert, Sviggum, and Day...you're on notice).
'Course, maybe someone could convince the Governor that the gas tax is like a "health impact fee"...
May 05, 2007
MnDOT wants to expand the "toll lane" business...
Time to repopulate the blog...and what a better opportunity than with a contentious transportation issue back home.
It seems that MnDOT wants to expand its inventory of HO/T lanes (or HOV/toll lanes) in the Twin Cities metro. An article in last week's StarTribune talks about MnDOT's proposal for an I-35W "toll lane" between downtown Minneapolis and Lakeville. Though the article concentrates mainly on I-35W, earlier articles mentioned the possibility of an I-494 toll lane through Plymouth, and I've heard through the grapevine about other potential corridors.
Personally, I don't see how a toll lane proposal for 35W south can be viable, for two main reasons:
- The "dynamic shoulder" bit...converting the inside shoulder into a lane...is dangerous. 35W has enough accidents as it is. Taking away one of the two parts of the roadway where those accidents (or regular breakdowns too) can be moved to and clear the regular lanes is asking for trouble. And the inside shoulder through Bloomington is substandard as it is.
Also, experience in Boston has shown that converting the shoulder into a lane not only increases accident potential, but also the severity of those accidents. There have been several fatal accidents on I-95 around Boston due to the use out there of the shoulder as a travel lane.
- Even though the existing 35W HOV lanes have a high violation rate, they also have a high rate of usage by valid HOV vehicles, not to mention the high bus frequency and usage along the corridor. And bus frequency along the corridor will likely jump even higher if the city ever manages to fix the bus lane situation along Marquette and 2nd Aves downtown. What this means is that any toll lane along 35W would have to charge a fairly high rate in order to keep the lanes flowing. And from what we've already seen with the 394 toll lanes, metro drivers aren't willing to pay that high of a price to use the lanes.
And related to that, I recall from earlier toll lane studies that traffic projections for 35W were such that by 2010 or shortly thereafter, there would be enough buses and valid HOVs using the lanes during peak hours to where there would be no room for toll-paying drivers.
The only alternatives (and the main negative aspect of each) are below:
- Have 2 toll lanes in each direction instead of one. This would solve the capacity issue noted above, but brings a whole slew of other problems: it would require either conversion of existing free lanes, or would require MAJOR construction to implement. The former is not feasible from a traffic standpoint and the latter would be both extremely expensive and likely opposed by Minneapolis.
- Increase the minimum number of riders for HOV status to 3. This would also solve the capacity issue, but would further complicate what is already a sticky enforcement issue.
- Require HOVs to pay the toll (but still allow buses to go free). This solves the enforcement problem but would likely be opposed by drivers and the city.
Although one could make the arguement that this is a way to implement "congestion pricing", the bottom line remains that it's all about money, or lack thereof, for funding road improvements. If we had a Legislature that could both support and pass a REALISTIC transportation funding package (the House version is close...the Senate version is too heavy) that is VETOPROOF (given who is sitting in the Governor's Mansion), we could solve the lack of funding problem and reduce/eliminate the need to pursue these "toll lane" carrots the Feds are offering.
It seems that MnDOT wants to expand its inventory of HO/T lanes (or HOV/toll lanes) in the Twin Cities metro. An article in last week's StarTribune talks about MnDOT's proposal for an I-35W "toll lane" between downtown Minneapolis and Lakeville. Though the article concentrates mainly on I-35W, earlier articles mentioned the possibility of an I-494 toll lane through Plymouth, and I've heard through the grapevine about other potential corridors.
Personally, I don't see how a toll lane proposal for 35W south can be viable, for two main reasons:
- The "dynamic shoulder" bit...converting the inside shoulder into a lane...is dangerous. 35W has enough accidents as it is. Taking away one of the two parts of the roadway where those accidents (or regular breakdowns too) can be moved to and clear the regular lanes is asking for trouble. And the inside shoulder through Bloomington is substandard as it is.
Also, experience in Boston has shown that converting the shoulder into a lane not only increases accident potential, but also the severity of those accidents. There have been several fatal accidents on I-95 around Boston due to the use out there of the shoulder as a travel lane.
- Even though the existing 35W HOV lanes have a high violation rate, they also have a high rate of usage by valid HOV vehicles, not to mention the high bus frequency and usage along the corridor. And bus frequency along the corridor will likely jump even higher if the city ever manages to fix the bus lane situation along Marquette and 2nd Aves downtown. What this means is that any toll lane along 35W would have to charge a fairly high rate in order to keep the lanes flowing. And from what we've already seen with the 394 toll lanes, metro drivers aren't willing to pay that high of a price to use the lanes.
And related to that, I recall from earlier toll lane studies that traffic projections for 35W were such that by 2010 or shortly thereafter, there would be enough buses and valid HOVs using the lanes during peak hours to where there would be no room for toll-paying drivers.
The only alternatives (and the main negative aspect of each) are below:
- Have 2 toll lanes in each direction instead of one. This would solve the capacity issue noted above, but brings a whole slew of other problems: it would require either conversion of existing free lanes, or would require MAJOR construction to implement. The former is not feasible from a traffic standpoint and the latter would be both extremely expensive and likely opposed by Minneapolis.
- Increase the minimum number of riders for HOV status to 3. This would also solve the capacity issue, but would further complicate what is already a sticky enforcement issue.
- Require HOVs to pay the toll (but still allow buses to go free). This solves the enforcement problem but would likely be opposed by drivers and the city.
Although one could make the arguement that this is a way to implement "congestion pricing", the bottom line remains that it's all about money, or lack thereof, for funding road improvements. If we had a Legislature that could both support and pass a REALISTIC transportation funding package (the House version is close...the Senate version is too heavy) that is VETOPROOF (given who is sitting in the Governor's Mansion), we could solve the lack of funding problem and reduce/eliminate the need to pursue these "toll lane" carrots the Feds are offering.
July 29, 2006
Responses to the letter
The SunHerald printed my letter on the 22nd. The only change they made was to the title...they used Price gouging? Or basic supply and demand?
Only two responses thus far, both via E-mail.
Here's one:
Just a note on economics: As you correctly point out, the supply and demand
balance of Coast housing has changed, but that doesn't imply that raising
rents isn't "gouging." The lack of housing simply allows rising rents; it doesn't
require it.
An interesting thought on the rent raising, though I still think if you have a short supply and high demand, that's going to bump the price up in order to ensure a supply. Basic market forces there.
Here's the other E-mail reply:
Excellent letter... Thank God there are people like you who understand
basic supply and demand. It is going to be tough here for quite a
while... Things will get better, but rent may not ever go back down to
pre-Katrina levels.
I have faith that if we can get our housing unit levels back up to what they were (if not higher) pre-Katrina, that rents will eventually go back down.
Note I said "if". Because it will take the residents convincing their planning
commissions and city councils/county boards of supervisors that housing developments that encompass all income levels (and not just high-end condos or 5+ acre lots in the country) are what's needed around here.
And, of course, that will take some doing...
Only two responses thus far, both via E-mail.
Here's one:
Just a note on economics: As you correctly point out, the supply and demand
balance of Coast housing has changed, but that doesn't imply that raising
rents isn't "gouging." The lack of housing simply allows rising rents; it doesn't
require it.
An interesting thought on the rent raising, though I still think if you have a short supply and high demand, that's going to bump the price up in order to ensure a supply. Basic market forces there.
Here's the other E-mail reply:
Excellent letter... Thank God there are people like you who understand
basic supply and demand. It is going to be tough here for quite a
while... Things will get better, but rent may not ever go back down to
pre-Katrina levels.
I have faith that if we can get our housing unit levels back up to what they were (if not higher) pre-Katrina, that rents will eventually go back down.
Note I said "if". Because it will take the residents convincing their planning
commissions and city councils/county boards of supervisors that housing developments that encompass all income levels (and not just high-end condos or 5+ acre lots in the country) are what's needed around here.
And, of course, that will take some doing...
July 19, 2006
It's been a while. A few months while. Time for an update.
Below is a Letter to the Editor that I sent to the SunHerald today. It's regarding where housing costs have gone here on the Gulf Coast since Hurricane Katrina.
Title: One person's price gouging is another person's supply-and-demand.
Several times over the last few months, I've noticed complaints in Sound Off regarding how rent has shot up dramatically. The chief complaint I've read is that a given person's rent has gone up x dollars, or is now so high that they can no longer afford it. There have even some accusations of price gouging.
I understand where they're coming from, as my own rent will increase about $270 when my current lease expires. But while it's unfortunate what we've all gone through down here, and that some good hard-working people will be forced to move elsewhere because of high rent, it's just as unfortunate that some of these people haven't stopped to think about WHY rents have shot up through the roof around here.
Consider this: yes, we went through a major hurricane last year. That hurricane destroyed a lot of apartments and housing units. And while people did evacuate for the hurricane and did not return, that loss of population was made up for in the number of construction and other workers that flooded the area after Katrina. Furthermore, I've heard that there are several families that refuse to live in a FEMA trailer, and thus have looked for accommodations in other ways.
So in reality, the result is we have a similar (if not) higher level of demand for housing, contrasted against a big drop in the housing supply. Thus, housing costs and rents go up, often in big and surprising numbers.
If you truly think that price gouging is involved, contact your local supervisor or legislator. Contact the attorney general. Better yet, do the research yourself into how many apartment/housing units were lost, how many are available, and how many people there are trying to live in or find those remaining units.
Ultimately, the solution either way will require replacing the lost housing units or othewise increasing the housing supply. Contact your local officials and pressure them to support developments that will increase this supply, at prices that everyone can afford. Not every one, even middle-class, will be able to afford living in a condo.
Just don't sit and complain in an anonymous forum about the rents.
Below is a Letter to the Editor that I sent to the SunHerald today. It's regarding where housing costs have gone here on the Gulf Coast since Hurricane Katrina.
Title: One person's price gouging is another person's supply-and-demand.
Several times over the last few months, I've noticed complaints in Sound Off regarding how rent has shot up dramatically. The chief complaint I've read is that a given person's rent has gone up x dollars, or is now so high that they can no longer afford it. There have even some accusations of price gouging.
I understand where they're coming from, as my own rent will increase about $270 when my current lease expires. But while it's unfortunate what we've all gone through down here, and that some good hard-working people will be forced to move elsewhere because of high rent, it's just as unfortunate that some of these people haven't stopped to think about WHY rents have shot up through the roof around here.
Consider this: yes, we went through a major hurricane last year. That hurricane destroyed a lot of apartments and housing units. And while people did evacuate for the hurricane and did not return, that loss of population was made up for in the number of construction and other workers that flooded the area after Katrina. Furthermore, I've heard that there are several families that refuse to live in a FEMA trailer, and thus have looked for accommodations in other ways.
So in reality, the result is we have a similar (if not) higher level of demand for housing, contrasted against a big drop in the housing supply. Thus, housing costs and rents go up, often in big and surprising numbers.
If you truly think that price gouging is involved, contact your local supervisor or legislator. Contact the attorney general. Better yet, do the research yourself into how many apartment/housing units were lost, how many are available, and how many people there are trying to live in or find those remaining units.
Ultimately, the solution either way will require replacing the lost housing units or othewise increasing the housing supply. Contact your local officials and pressure them to support developments that will increase this supply, at prices that everyone can afford. Not every one, even middle-class, will be able to afford living in a condo.
Just don't sit and complain in an anonymous forum about the rents.
January 31, 2006
Highway project information online...or lack thereof...
The latter being mostly the case down here in Mississippi. Lately, it seems MDOT has been more interested in pushing its projects through rather than let the public know what's going on with them. Just today, the SunHerald ran an article about proposed improvements to MS 57 between I-10 and Vancleve that are a few years off, including mentioning that the Feds have signed off on the environmental assessment and that there's a preferred alternative. And this is one of the better cases, in that at least there was a section about the project on the MDOT website, even though the announcement about the public meetings that were held this summer wasn't posted on their website until well after the meetings were held.
And that's to say nothing about there being no MDOT news releases posted since New Year's, and getting to the news releases from last year is impossible due to some website glitches.
They could do a lot to learn how posting project information online can help the public input process...something MDOT has been sorely lacking in for a long time, not just with recent events.
And that's to say nothing about there being no MDOT news releases posted since New Year's, and getting to the news releases from last year is impossible due to some website glitches.
They could do a lot to learn how posting project information online can help the public input process...something MDOT has been sorely lacking in for a long time, not just with recent events.
January 30, 2006
Bridge debate, part X
A Letter to the Editor over the weekend, written by two people who were involved with the Renewal Forum held after the hurricane, basically blasted MDOT for their continued insistence on their proposed bridge design for the Biloxi-Ocean Springs span. They demand that MDOT scrap "Bridgezilla" and get on with building a temporary span along the path of the destroyed bridge (using the remaining pillars if possible), while everyone sits down and plans a new permanent bridge that everyone can agree with (or at least agree enough to get it built).
The two letter writers, and others of their peers, appear to have created two new websites to further their causes: www.msrenewalcoalition.org and www.bridgenow.org . The former looks to be a support page for the policies recommended by the Renewal Forum, while the latter is plainly a call for MDOT to scrap their design, build a temporary bridge, then plan and build a permanent bridge along the lines of that proposed in the Renewal Forum.
I took a look through the latter site this evening, in particular their FAQ. One particular entry in their FAQ perpetuates the theory, held by many of the Renewal forumers and those in Ocean Springs and the subject of several letters over the last month, that MDOT's 6-lane bridge proposal is really a "10-lane bridge".
I immediately sent an E-mail to the bridgenow.org people explaining the fallacy of this misinformation (I called it misinformation, anyway). Some of the particulars of MDOT's bridge proposal are available on their website if you know where to look (trust me, it took some digging). Their proposal is for, in each direction, 3 12-ft driving lanes, an 8-ft inside shoulder, and a 10-ft outside shoulder. For them to squeeze 5 lanes out of that, they would have to eliminate both shoulders and make the driving lanes about 10.5 feet wide, neither of which would be likely to pass muster with FHWA (the Feds), who would have a vote in the matter. Although it would result in only 6 feet of combined shoulder, having 4 lanes each way would be a future possibility, but 5 lanes each way is a bit of a stretch.
To my surprise (and impressment), I received a reply from a Dr. Jeffrey Bounds, who agreed that 10 lanes would be a stretch and said they would revise the FAQ to reflect such.
Goes to show that, even amidst disagreement (I disagree with the coalition on how many lanes the bridge needs, though I generally agree with their other positions on the bridge), there can still be civility. MDOT would do well to take a lesson on that...
The two letter writers, and others of their peers, appear to have created two new websites to further their causes: www.msrenewalcoalition.org and www.bridgenow.org . The former looks to be a support page for the policies recommended by the Renewal Forum, while the latter is plainly a call for MDOT to scrap their design, build a temporary bridge, then plan and build a permanent bridge along the lines of that proposed in the Renewal Forum.
I took a look through the latter site this evening, in particular their FAQ. One particular entry in their FAQ perpetuates the theory, held by many of the Renewal forumers and those in Ocean Springs and the subject of several letters over the last month, that MDOT's 6-lane bridge proposal is really a "10-lane bridge".
I immediately sent an E-mail to the bridgenow.org people explaining the fallacy of this misinformation (I called it misinformation, anyway). Some of the particulars of MDOT's bridge proposal are available on their website if you know where to look (trust me, it took some digging). Their proposal is for, in each direction, 3 12-ft driving lanes, an 8-ft inside shoulder, and a 10-ft outside shoulder. For them to squeeze 5 lanes out of that, they would have to eliminate both shoulders and make the driving lanes about 10.5 feet wide, neither of which would be likely to pass muster with FHWA (the Feds), who would have a vote in the matter. Although it would result in only 6 feet of combined shoulder, having 4 lanes each way would be a future possibility, but 5 lanes each way is a bit of a stretch.
To my surprise (and impressment), I received a reply from a Dr. Jeffrey Bounds, who agreed that 10 lanes would be a stretch and said they would revise the FAQ to reflect such.
Goes to show that, even amidst disagreement (I disagree with the coalition on how many lanes the bridge needs, though I generally agree with their other positions on the bridge), there can still be civility. MDOT would do well to take a lesson on that...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)